#SellBeforeWeDai (to someone fit and proper)“ supporters action group

[blythspartan]

Definitely written by someone different to the previous statements.

So either from the lawyers now involved or someone has invested in better AI.

The statement definitely looks like it’s been done by a lawyer.

Also, if Pang was heavily involved in the Holmes deal he hasn’t done a bad job in my opinion. Holmes had 6 months of his contract left and we are getting a fee, Holmes back until the end of the season and he’s off the wage bill.

Wouldn't give him too much credit - Holmes had 18 months left. Would also imagine that details such as the loan back etc were sorted by Bowen (in conversation with both Luton and Holmes - would imagine Holmes played a big part in staying on) once he was told it was happening.

Yeah, you’re probably right. I hadn’t realised Holmes still had 18 months left.

[Brogue]

Still think getting 500k for a league one player isn’t bad business tbf.

[Orion1871]

Still think getting 500k for a league one player isn’t bad business tbf.

Plenty of money to gamble away at Les Ambassadeurs.

[Sutekh]

Just for those that missed the most recent club statement:

The owners of Reading FC appreciate and understand the concerns of its loyal fans and partners in the community.

They know how much the Club means to all concerned and share their desire for the Club to have a sustainable and successful future on the field.

They however regret the actions taken at the Port Vale match and would implore fans to engage in no further disruptions to either home or away fixtures.

Mr Dai has agreed that he will look to sell the Club at the earliest opportunity, and he has engaged lawyers to assist in the disposal.

Nigel Howe will assist the lawyers in leading the process and coordinating the potential buyers and to provide access to information that is available.

The EFL are fully engaged in the process, and they are being kept informed on a regular basis and are committed to supporting the Club in finding the appropriate solutions as quickly as possible.

We ask, in conclusion, for our fans to keep faith in the Club and to know that the owners are making every effort to finalise its sale at the earliest opportunity.

In return the owners commit to communicating substantive developments when they are able to do so.

[Franchise FC]

Who is the lawyer

Ian, I think.

Ian royal is a lawyer?

Not spelt that way

[WestYorksRoyal]

Still think getting 500k for a league one player isn’t bad business tbf.

Plenty of money to gamble away at Les Ambassadeurs.

Joking aside, do you think in our current situation the EFL have power to ensure that money goes towards paying the Club's bills and isn't simply placed on red?

[Brogue]

Still think getting 500k for a league one player isn’t bad business tbf.

Plenty of money to gamble away at Les Ambassadeurs.

Joking aside, do you think in our current situation the EFL have power to ensure that money goes towards paying the Club's bills and isn't simply placed on red?

None of us know so it’s pointless speculating really

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Still think getting 500k for a league one player isn’t bad business tbf.

Plenty of money to gamble away at Les Ambassadeurs.

Joking aside, do you think in our current situation the EFL have power to ensure that money goes towards paying the Club's bills and isn't simply placed on red?

I don't see how they can, otherwise surely they'd have stepped in long before now to ensure that staff, HMRC etc are paid on time. I think the best they can do is what they've done previously, order Dai to pay a percentage into a designated account by a certain date.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

Plenty of money to gamble away at Les Ambassadeurs.

Joking aside, do you think in our current situation the EFL have power to ensure that money goes towards paying the Club's bills and isn't simply placed on red?

I don't see how they can, otherwise surely they'd have stepped in long before now to ensure that staff, HMRC etc are paid on time. I think the best they can do is what they've done previously, order Dai to pay a percentage into a designated account by a certain date.

I think the EFL may have dropped the ball somewhat, as IIRC, the EFL made regular financial reporting a condition of Dai being allowed to take over. If they haven't been doing that, they likely won't be monitoring transfer transactions either.

[Greatwesternline]

It would be good business for the club:

1) If it was £500k
2) If it was put towards paying players wages and HMRC on time for now until the end of the season to avoid any more points deductions
3) Wasnt simply cash instantly extracted from the club and into our owners personal finances.
4) If it was paid upfront


Given we dont know if any of those are true for certain, its impossible to say it was good business.

[Greatwesternline]

Joking aside, do you think in our current situation the EFL have power to ensure that money goes towards paying the Club's bills and isn't simply placed on red?

I don't see how they can, otherwise surely they'd have stepped in long before now to ensure that staff, HMRC etc are paid on time. I think the best they can do is what they've done previously, order Dai to pay a percentage into a designated account by a certain date.

I think the EFL may have dropped the ball somewhat, as IIRC, the EFL made regular financial reporting a condition of Dai being allowed to take over. If they haven't been doing that, they likely won't be monitoring transfer transactions either.

What makes you think they havent been receiving regular financial reporting?

[Armadillo Roadkill]

As recently as this week the EFL have recognised Reading's transparency about the finances. That suggests to me the club have been meeting their reporting obligations.

If, in year two of the three year period over which losses can be spread, the reporting suggests the club will struggle to reign in the losses in year three, there's notthing the EFL can do to force the club to make better decisions.

[Greatwesternline]

As recently as this week the EFL have recognised Reading's transparency about the finances. That suggests to me the club have been meeting their reporting obligations.

If, in year two of the three year period over which losses can be spread, the reporting suggests the club will struggle to reign in the losses in year three, there's notthing the EFL can do to force the club to make better decisions.

Yep. For a number of years the club was blowing money away and doing so transparently! The EFL then informed them they had broken the rules. Reading did everything in knowledge of the rules.

[rabidbee]

One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.

The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).

[Sutekh]

One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.

The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Suffragettes; the Easter Rising; the Revolutions of 1989; the poll tax riots to name a few.

Not a fan of sarcasm I see?

you had me as well tbh

"What do we want?"
"Someone to spaff tens of millions of pounds a year with no hope of any return"
"When do we want it?"
"last week!"

[Ten Bobsworth]

Not a fan of sarcasm I see?

you had me as well tbh

"What do we want?"
"Someone to spaff tens of millions of pounds a year with no hope of any return"
"When do we want it?"
"last week!"

Eeh by gum, what's tha doin ere?
Tha's not sposed to be thinkin street i' these parts

[WestYorksRoyal]

One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.

The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).

But it all ties into the PL settlement. I believe that, in addition to parachute payments, the PL are trying to require that the ratio would be 90% for relegated side as it's harder for them to get wages back under control. This just bakes in inequality even further. Then there is also uncertainty on how to allow for transfer revenue, which will be one off for accounting purposes compared with wages which will be tied into 2 - 3 contracts.

To be fair, how to ensure clubs are sustainable whilst not discouraging investment or undermining competing is a bloody difficult question. But obviously it shouldn't be up the the PL and EFL to mark their own homework.

[rabidbee]

One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.

The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).

But it all ties into the PL settlement. I believe that, in addition to parachute payments, the PL are trying to require that the ratio would be 90% for relegated side as it's harder for them to get wages back under control. This just bakes in inequality even further. Then there is also uncertainty on how to allow for transfer revenue, which will be one off for accounting purposes compared with wages which will be tied into 2 - 3 contracts.

To be fair, how to ensure clubs are sustainable whilst not discouraging investment or undermining competing is a bloody difficult question. But obviously it shouldn't be up the the PL and EFL to mark their own homework.

Yeah. Parry discussed parachute payments a lot, whilst Masters looked very uncomfortable. I think he suggested that with parachute payments and player sales (typically £50m after relegation) relegated clubs can expect to operate on £110m a year, whilst other Championship clubs have £30m (this is all from memory). He also pointed out that in the last six years, two out of three promoted clubs were on parachute payments. He spent a long time discussing what they would prefer, which seemed a bit wishy-washy tbf (look more at what they need rather than an arbitrary figure).

[YorkshireRoyal99]

One of Parry's comments before the parliamentary committee the other day was that the EFL would prefer to move from the current set up (losses of up to £39m over three years) to squad-cost ratios (I think he said limited to ~70% of turnover) which would enable the league to move from acting retrospectively (punishing a club for something it did three years ago) to acting prospectively (as he put it), for instance preventing the registration of any player that would take the club over the squad-cost ratio.

The whole session was interesting, and did contradict some of the received wisdom often spouted on here. The EFL are not terrified about an independent regulator, Rick Parry repeatedly demanded MPs hurry up and introduce one; they aren't worried they will lose their powers, Parry wants the regulator to take on responsibility for the owners and directors test, and for the financial sustainability rules (whatever they will be).

But it all ties into the PL settlement. I believe that, in addition to parachute payments, the PL are trying to require that the ratio would be 90% for relegated side as it's harder for them to get wages back under control. This just bakes in inequality even further. Then there is also uncertainty on how to allow for transfer revenue, which will be one off for accounting purposes compared with wages which will be tied into 2 - 3 contracts.

To be fair, how to ensure clubs are sustainable whilst not discouraging investment or undermining competing is a bloody difficult question. But obviously it shouldn't be up the the PL and EFL to mark their own homework.

In terms of wages, I have always wondered why it isn't made mandatory to have a % wage drop included in players' contracts across all PL clubs. If that came out at 20% across your entire squad for example, that's a significant saving made before you have even begun to move some of your players on which would inevitably happen.

Practically, whilst it may put players off from joining clubs, it wouldn't deter everybody and also supports a club from a sustainability point of view, more so than passing them money to play with upon relegation. I've always thought that parachute payments just invites clubs to gamble back for promotion, look at West Brom for example.